The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Vaccinials – The Betrayed Generation of Americans

We have created a new generation of Systemically Injured Kids (SIK): those born since 1994. 17 of 66 kids in a recent basketball tournament I attended, bore some variant of readily observable brain injury based disability. This was a random single observation and anecdote of course. But it is also science, and a part of the growing base of intelligence being assembled by the real scientists on this issue, parents.  Our clarion alarm grows louder with each month and with each new concurring study. Yes vaccines are preventing disease, but at what cost? We have not even asked this question as a society. We just closed our eyes, plugged our ears and hoped for the best.
This ethical argument for safer vaccines & vaccine schedules has begun to turn the tide of discussion. And the power wielding/virtue signalling social skeptics who enforce conclusions around this argument, are losing on their very own claimed home turf: Science.

Over my career I have sought out and solved a number of business, social and scientific problems of varying sizes.  Some of those problem resolutions bear far reaching impacts which affect the lives of every single person reading this article. Ninety-nine percent however, simply served to benefit the client or nation which was directly involved.  The point being, that my skill set includes development of intelligence based data collection frameworks, and how to apply those frameworks to creatively resolve problems and solve mysteries. I have been witness to copious amounts of the worst of human behavior, and am familiar with how it disguises itself with misinformation and counter-intelligence; spun by the poseurs who conceal such activity (one of the reasons for beginning this search called ethical skepticism).

So, attending a recreational basketball tournament at our local rec center yesterday, I laid aside of course my normal habits, in order to simply enjoy a Saturday morning, and have some fun with my basketball loving son.  He, like me in high school, was not skilled enough to make his high school basketball squad – despite hours of practice, years of junior and rec league ball and a sincere love of the sport.  James Naismith should receive sainthood, for inventing what amounts to be – the acme of sports ever devised, basketball. A vigorous workout, fairly low on injury incidence, playable indoor our outdoors, exciting, high scoring, requiring a solid understanding of defense, offense and most importantly, team play.  The perfect sport.

But you see, my son’s situation differs from my high school experience in that he was injured through a 6 week long and tortuous reaction to the Pertussis vaccine at age 6 months. Our bright-eyed little wonder who looked me in the eye each day and smiled at my various facial expressions – never looked me in the eye again after that fateful first day of the ‘reaction’. We bore not the first clue of what this was and trusted our doctor’s urging that this reaction would pass and things would be fine. We entered the injury into a useless database filled with millions upon millions of varying magnitude but similar reports by parents in the US. However, the full impact of this set of events did not show up until age 5, when my son’s K-5 teacher raised the warning flag that there were problems.  Now at age 17, despite more than a decade of therapy and special schooling, he struggles to tie his shoes, count change and tell the time.

Ours was not the first instance where social skeptic dogma has left physicians and parents ignorant, becoming the genesis of extensive amounts of suffering and harm; and it will not be the last. As do most Encephalopathy/ASD parents, we have learned that we face opposition in the form of cocooned arrogance, obfuscation, lying and virtue signalling. As a society, we wallow in the cultivated ignorance enveloping this issue. Failing to even acknowledge this generation of kids, the gravitas and cost of life impact they have suffered, nor the pain of the victims involved.1 But if this was just a matter of a shortfall or failure to act, that would be one thing (and they would be the ‘Forgotten Generation’ in that case). Instead, this is an act of betrayal wherein, malevolent parties seek to make and enforce final scientific claims on behalf of us all, derived strictly from absences of data (appeal to ignorance).

“I was not prepared for the vitriol, largely anonymous, which accompanied our publication [suggesting a link between human exposure to aluminium and the aetiology of autism]. I have been elucidating upon the potential dangers of the aluminium age for 34 years now but I have never before had my life threatened openly. I can only assume that our research has weighed very heavily on the toes of those who will not counter the possibility that not all vaccines are 100% safe.”

~ Dr. Chris Exley, Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry, Group Leader – Bioinorganic Chemistry Laboratory at Keele University2

The good news is, that my son picked the right home and family. He is my champion, my light and my example of courage, humility and persistence. I cherish, love and support my son through his struggles – every single day of my life. He never demands, he never complains, he always smiles, he always loves. He does not even know how to lie. He is my buddy, a happy loving little guy (not so little now) – who responds every single time that I ask of him, “Yeah, I am happy Dad.” The innocent, carried away from the flood-spewing Dragon upon the wings of an Eagle, to a Place prepared beforehand.

The Null Hypothesis: A Vaccine Reaction is a Cerebral Injury of Unknown Magnitude

However, while watching the games play this weekend, unfortunately my habits of observation began to kick in again. I was not a coach, of course. God forbid that I ever be a coach at anything other than specific forms of business problem solving. I did manage to wrestle, run cross country and make swim team in my younger years. Skills which proved useful during my years as a Naval Intelligence Officer. But I never totally caught the team sport edge which is necessary in coaching basketball or football. This is not to say that I am not a ‘team player’ – aside from a skill in spotting those who abuse unity as a lever for personal gain or in resolving some childhood trauma (There is no ‘I’ in team, but there is often a hidden ‘me’).  I appreciate and support those selfless parents who possess such skills and offer them in service to all our kids – as we all did yesterday in the recreation league tournament. But I am an observer, a question reduction, critical path specialist and problem solver. Favoring information for its ability to establish plurality, its probative potential; seldom possessing an aversion to anecdote, when in its proper role.

System disruptions, such as immune and brain system injuries, are not confined to one discrete sliver of the population as the NVICS or CDC statistics might imply – rather they are distributed over a diminishing arrival wave function (see right hand image in graphic above) across virtually all persons who possess such an exposure (virtually all of our children). There is no such thing as a ‘no effect’ in the human brain.3

A vaccine is a potentially permanent systemic alteration… a large footprint, potentially premature system activation and brain barrier tampering involving plurifinality – including brain injury.4 5 It does not simply perform the primary task intended – and is not the same thing as a cure, nor antidote. We must cease viewing these treatments in such naive and simpleton-science 1880’s understanding. Yes they bear benefit, but they also tamper with and involve, immune systems and cerebral impacts which we do not yet fully understand.  Systems which are now coincidentally failing, in over-vaccinated American children and adults in particular, at epidemic rates.

Human Immune Systems are subject to Negentropy and dysfunction, without warning or clear indication of cause. Our inability to spot the cause of related symptoms, does not therefore mean that a cause does not exist. This is an implicit argument from ignorance – the heart and soul of today’s vaccine and autoimmune science.

Precaution, premises, logical calculus, multiple confirmed mechanisms, aetiology, epidemiology data, evidence of expression, enormity of risk, and public will – ALL exist such that they collectively support now, this

Null Hypothesis:   A Vaccine Reaction is a cerebral and immune system disruption of unknown magnitude and persistence.

Until we have much better science, we cannot continue to abide by the idea that non-probative ‘absence of observations’, inferred from arm’s-length healthcare plan data on pre-5 year olds – equals an adequate basis for a positive scientific claim. Such work nowhere near represents competent or plenary science. Instead, we must weigh the dangers of not using a vaccine, against the real and present danger of using it. One should never be used as a matter of social convenience. We must place a value chain quantity on this risk (of creating populations A’, B’ and C’ in the graphic toward the end of this article) and weigh it against the benefit received from a 46 event childhood vaccine schedule (as compared to say, a 9 event one). This is how sound science decision making is done in a free nation and inside the public trust.

Nonetheless, during my son’s recent basketball competition, this urge broached to take a sample count of player profiles. There of course was no way to skeptically deflect this idea – an habitual precaution I suppose; something integral to my nature. In observing all the players by profile/type/skill, I noted that of 66 kids who participated in the tournament, 17 of them bore some obvious (and I mean no doubt at all) disability related to cerebral injury. The gait, the stride, the imbalance, lack of coordination and core-to-extremities hypotonia. The habitually contracted, rather than fluid relaxed joint dispositions, the mid-line crossing issues, the hand to eye dysfunction, the struggle to break from dribble focus to teammate or basket. The facial/maxillary structural development issues, neck posture and focal/awareness struggles. All the things which the specialists have shown us over the last 13 years of this daily PhD program. The difference being, that I am a trained professional observer. The players bore disability to such extent that, as an employer I would suspect that they might struggle to perform most complex job offerings. This was not a special needs recreation league mind you, rather just a normal community basketball league – albeit by rule, one which only allows a kid to play if they have not been tagged for one of the local high school varsity teams. However, in statistical counterbalance, this count excluded severe autism and encephalopathy, Guillain-Barré, Down Syndrome, mitochondrial disease and kids with severe Cerebral Palsy (who did not play but some of whom were present in the audience).

17 of 66 kids – 26% of the kids in a normal random recreation league tournament – bearing various forms and magnitude of obvious early childhood brain injury

What a fool believes he sees, the wise man has the power to reason away.

My Fear is This:  That the systemic injury curve above, not only is unacknowledged, but as well may not taper off as forgivingly as I have depicted either. The damage we are doing to our children may not show up until such time as we are compelled to ignore it or accept it as simply generational or personal eccentricity.

These kids were not goofy. We had plenty of goofy kids back in my elementary school days. Heck, I was one of them. By 17 I had grown out of that ilk of issues. This was problematically more than just being a bit young and uncoordinated. This was injury – these kids were struggling into adulthood. Back in my days of elementary school, our special needs class (combined in a classroom with other kids and including ‘stay at home’ kids in our small community – and including Down Syndrome and Cerebral Palsy) was 3 of 128 – or 2.3%. In fact, if we exclude CP and DS, this was 1 kid in reality, who bore this similar type of brain injury. Less than 1%.

“There are unanswered questions about vaccine safety… No one should be threatened by the pursuit of this knowledge. I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational without sufficient studies of causation.”

~ Dr Bernadine Healy, MD (Former Director, National Institute of Health and Former President, American Red Cross)

The plural of anecdote as it turns out, is data after all. And ‘The Scientists’, are not the casual health bureaucracy PhD statisticians; but instead, are those who are in the field daily, as professional observers and intervention specialists, i.e. parents. Something is wrong folks, something is seriously, seriously wrong. This, if representative even in the least, bears inference to damage and lifelong disability to millions of kids, …as opposed to an unremarkable outbreak of chickenpox.

If you are conducting policy-research epidemiology on kids’ permanent injury, and you ignore the input of parents or diagnoses after age 5 – you are a fake skeptic and therefore, are faking science.

Plurality has been dramatically surpassed. This argument is real. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the plight of vaccine vulnerable Americans. We cannot continue to spin our risk unknown as merely personal eccentricities on the part of our kids.

Vaccinials: The Betrayed Generation

When Virtue-Shielded Systems Fail – Those Who Operate them Fail to Observe That Failure

Several NASA and SpaceX engineer buddies have an expression about large scale explosions and other disasters with respect to rocket launch, control and landing: they call it ‘Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly’. This a humorous play on the acronyms regarding systems function, performance and diagnostics (identified in ISO 26262 and other presiding standards). The key point being, that even in systems theory, where we possess highly understood, modeled and controlled dynamic factors – disasters routinely occur.  With immunizations (both natural and artificial), this becomes even more pronounced a potential, because we do not fully grasp all the contributing elements, impacting factors, arrival distributions, interleaving effects, side effects, cross-system impacts, barrier exceptions, nor functions (primary and secondary), nor even presence of – all the systemic factors involved inside human adaptive and innate immunity to pathogens. We hold no science for FMEDA, Failure Mode Effects and Diagnostic Analysis for instance. Of course the retort that ‘We do not bear the detailed knowledge of body systems in order to adhere to such industry practices’ only serves to reinforce my point here.  We do not know fully what we are doing with respect to vaccines. We do not even know, what we do not even know. We inject rats, monkeys and people, and celebrate the benefits; then dismiss and ignore any mention of potential negative effects (save for the 0.01% most profound ones). Much akin to a religion.

We believe so much in the innate goodness and righteousness of the program, that we become immune to science itself.

As you may be able to observe in the graph I assembled above, the growth in vaccine events post 1994 (the orange line, indexed off the 2nd Y-axis), immediately preceded a similar dynamic in the observed incidence rates of new ASD cases (the blue line, indexed off the first Y-axis), by a timeframe of about 5 years. If I were to choose a cause-suggestive interval on this matter – it would be 5 to 7 years, because of the dynamics surrounding how and when cause-to-effect is observed. Please note the above graph is not a ‘correlation’ – and don’t let pretend skeptics try to tell you that it is. The fingerprint data represent much more than a simple Pearson’s PPMCC correlation. As well, one might see that in this latest 2014-2016 CDC study released in November 2017, ASD incidence continues nicely along the 42x² gentle acceleration curve which ASD incidence has followed since 1994. All of this bucking and refuting the discrete jumps which should have been seen, were these increases merely a factor of change in diagnosis protocols (all marked at the bottom of the graph by year of introduction). In 2002, there might have existed an argument that the protocols of DSM-IV could have precipitated a jump in diagnoses – but any supposition of this nature in 2017, has evaporated into wishful thinking.

This is the danger of fake skepticism folks – obfuscating an issue of precaution during a critical inflection point (see point ‘Indigo‘ on the chart above), and thereby allowing the danger to conflagrate into a national disaster. We should have declared a hiatus in vaccine schedule ramp ups, in favor of a period of observation beginning in 1999. Instead, we did the opposite – adding more vaccine events and reducing the overall monitoring of ASD incidence inside the population.

We justified all this based upon a single study which was conducted in a low-event vaccine country, against only 1 vaccine event (MMR), on children pre 5 years old, and which ended in 1998 before any of this ramp up in vaccine events occurred at all. The US, in taking the lead on vaccine event proliferation, should have ethically crafted the science around this, and with their own 2 to 15 year old kids, not Danish pre-5 year olds. This is a malevolent level of accountability avoidance, bait and switch science.

There is no one-liner, no virtue signalling, no industry propaganda which can ever excuse this set of ignorance enhancing actions during the 1999 – 2014 time frame.

This is all inductive inference aetiology and not tantamount to final proof just yet, of course. But in contrast, the idea that there is not a concern, is not science at all. To ignore this issue, borders on criminal and malevolent negligence.  Each week, study after study continues to arrive linking either immune system activation or vaccine adjuvants themselves, with autism. The problem has grown lock step commensurate with the incidence, complexity, frequency and increase of vaccine events. We cannot continue our current one-liner driven head in the sand science any longer.

Most importantly, this is an acceleration folks – not a dampening of nor steady growth. It is a significant issue. Graph data sources: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

And as it regards mundane communicable illnesses, and in the face of compelling evidence of injury to an entire generation of kids – this is not science, this is not ethics, this is not humanity. Not in the least.

The red herring of ‘It’s all just an increase in diagnosis’, is debunked. Ghosts, UFO’s and Bigfoot do not harm us at all. Ignorance does. If one was a true skeptic, one would be all over this issue – and not touting conformist propaganda and weak probative value studies.†

Why is the 2015 Jain-Marshall Study of weak probative value? Because it took third party, unqualified (health care plan) sample interpretations of absences (these are not observations – they are ‘lack-of’ observations – which are not probative data to an intelligence specialist – nor to a scientist – see pseudo-theory) from vaccinated and non-vaccinated children’s final medical diagnoses at ages 2, 3, and 5. A similar data vulnerability to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation System’s ‘self-volunteering’ of information and limitation of detection to within 3 years. This fails to catch 99% of signal observations, and there is good demonstrable record of that failure to detect actual injury circumstances.16 My son’s symptoms were not diagnosed as encephalitic by medical professionals to, nor especially accepted/recorded by a medical plan until he was 7 years old – and his case involves a moderate to high disability. We would have not even counted as ASD/Encephalopathy were we included inside the Jain-Marshall study – and 97% of ASD and encephalopathy cases are not as severe as is my son’s! Most ASD parents understand why this method of approach is without any merit whatsoever. ASD parents are already well versed in this gaming of statistics.

Plus, had they followed the scientific method, it would have dictated a cohort study on the Pertussis vaccine first. A pronounced effect – more likely to be categorized by age 5 by a medical plan, large challenging database, a contrast with older studies and enormous informative potential, convincing in broadening the footprint of the sampled horizon, clear and lengthy subject and object administration history – larger pool of non-vaccinated members, etc. They meticulously avoided this avenue of research because of the risk to their careers. Instead opting to pursuing age-limit methodologies and sampling channels which had proved successful in suppressing p-value signals in previous MMR-autism studies. When you craft a study methodology based upon your precedented likelihood of obtaining a non-controversial result – this is pseudoscience. Profit fueling, and celebrity endowing pseudoscience. ASD parents are keenly familiar with this analytical game as well.

Moreover, the lead author is a practicing pediatrician, and NOT a research professional. She is only cursorily trained in hypothesis reduction, statistics and testing theory. One or two courses at best. People who are degreed in hypothesis testing, systems modeling and scientific statistical reduction take up to eleven such courses (what I took). As a result, the authors missed the implications surrounding its indicated vaccine-autism-CURATIVE effect which emerged from the data; in that those who were vaccinated, showed as actually having been prevented from getting autism or were cured of it. Holy – hide this or be censured – Batman! This is called an inversion effect, and is indicative of data tampering and target screening/exclusion bias. The principle involves an unintended alteration of a part of a study’s comprehensive results, in reaction to its screening out of disliked profiles from a subset or input set analysis. Because we filtered out the cases where vaccines might have caused autism, or the system missed them because of bureaucracy, time frame limits or recording failures, inside subset data groups – when those data are added into the overall mix, it imbues an apparent curative effect on the part of the variable now favored in subset data (vaccination). An input bias which was necessary in balancing the overall average into a statistically neutral, and career-preserving, range. But an input bias which betrays its culprit at the same time. A fingerprint. Had this study shown indeed, a significant link between autism and the vaccine schedule – publication would not have been the next step. Rather, followup by means of question methodology to determine what went wrong in the data.

When one filters out autism-vaccine linkages in the data (see the gamma (γ) band or C’ group of injuries in the below graphic), one imbues into the data an effect which indicates that autism is therefore more highly associated with the non-vaccination population. Therefore, an impossible (and ominous) contraposition arises in the results –> vaccines prevent (or cure, if you adhere to the genetic origin construct) autism. This is no different than finding an empty bank vault with tons of fingerprints all over its open door. Just harder to envision on the part of the general public.

A lab quality specialist uses inversion effect observations like which emerged in the Jain-Marshall study, to detect when data might have been accidentally skewed inside a study. The reality: This study would not pass a test of real scientific merit – and is nigh unto fraud, to a knowledgeable parent, and especially to a knowledgeable systems statistician. It only fits a social narrative and only serves to convince the gullible. And please do not insult ASD parents by attempting to foist the fairy-tale that ‘There is no reason for scientists to seek only conforming results. Scientists would have been excited to get such groundbreaking results. They would have been all over this.’ Stop, just please don’t even…  just stop.

Provided we understand at-risk genetics, I concur with the need to undertake the risk and vaccinate our population of kids for the Big Four (Red Measles, Rubella, Mumps, Polio) – all death/debilitation-bearing and highly communicable childhood diseases against which I have recommended or supported vaccines as a part of national strategies on health. So I am not ‘Anti-Vax’ as a hired malicious propaganda artist might be tempted to spout. But these interventions comprise only 7 of the vaccination events under the current CDC recommended schedule. Nor have we sought out safer alternative modes, timings, forms and adjuvants; save for a partial elimination of thimerosal from the schedule – due to enormous pressure from ASD parents and scientists. Despite the wealth of study citing the child impacting damage of this adjuvant alone, we constantly hear the pablum from social skeptics about how the amount of mercury is minuscule and in the wrong from to do any harm. Yet it did, and it does still. Our propaganda has blinded us to sound science decision making as a society. We do not bear a need, nor have we studied the risk entailed inside a 46 event childhood vaccination schedule.17 This is a failure to recognize systemic failure, blinded inside a virtue-shielded system. This is the same principle (called anosognosia) by which a religion fails to observe its own negative facets or deleterious impacts.

My Construct on What is Happening (Pre-Hypothesis): The Post-Columbine Generation

Observation  –>  Intelligence  –>  Necessity  –>  Hypothesis Development   –   Why These are the Critical Start of the Scientific Method

What follows is indeed a construct – a pre hypothesis. This is the process of science which social skeptics detest – because it is a process that introduces ideas which threaten their clients or religious beliefs. Below, one might discern the process by which social skeptics obfuscate vaccine science through eliminating the observation-intelligence-necessity steps of the scientific method. The two Poisson arrival distribution curve graphic below, is what is known as Intelligence (in business, science and the military – of which I have done intelligence work in all three). Intelligence is the analytical and strategic process by which one assigns a viewing framework, and testing critical path standard surrounding a question of the unknown. What is the nature of this issue and what questions do we ask next? It is where we derive necessity, hypothesis and the series of critical path questions which drive science itself. Intelligence seeks out pathways to increase the reliability of probative observations, and does not presume that our premature and current ‘reliable’ information is anywhere near probative (see Anecdote – The Cry of the Pseudo-Skeptic). Iraqi weapons of mass destruction claims, were an instance where intelligence professionals used ‘reliable’ information channels and attempted to make them probative. Intelligence is a process bearing enormous threat to someone looking to make sure science never produces an embargoed answer.

By the trick of avoiding these steps, and through means of this anosognosiac virtue-shielded obsession; this inability to observe and understand/detect systemic failures and search for their cause, all of us face the stark possibility that we have created a new generation of Systemically Injured Kids (SIK). These kids are outlined in the λ=2.2 Poisson Distribution (a fitting parametization of this type of effect) below. The graph compares the profundity of brain/immune injury on the x-axis, to the probability that one has of contracting that profundity (P(ρ)) on the y-axis. The black curve represents a lower risk or even natural immune system activation injury curve (7 or less events), while the orange curve represents a 120% theoretical premature activated injury distribution (a 46 event aggressive vaccine schedule). The injured class of kids are the displaced groups A’, B’ and C’ (formerly A, B and C) in the 2.2 (120%) lambda (λ) immune activation curve in orange below. Those born after the late 80’s rush to increase pharmaceutical revenues in such a way as to wow Wall Street into coughing up some of the bubble money rushing through that period of equity market economics. We rushed headlong into new profitable vaccines and abandoned all precaution after 1990. These victims are forming into a new and measurable, separate generation/component: The Betrayed Generation – Vaccinials. As I have conjectured, but with sound basis, in the graph below – the old A + B group of healthy children have shifted to the new immune/brain impacted groups A’ + B’. Most all of these are not detectable cases by age 5, however like my son’s case, are detectable by age 15 when observed by an aware or not even aware (as in our case) parent or physician.

The beta (β) band group of kids below (or B’ injury group) are the ones we could count as injuries, but because of political reasons we have chosen instead to abandon these kids and their parents. My son resides in this group. All of the kids I counted in the 17 of 66 above, reside in this group as well.

The alpha (α) band group of kids below (or A’ injury group) are the ones we cannot now detect as being injured/impacted. However, they are in fact impacted as well. They will compose our new, poorly understood despair class of kids. We will sit around scratching our heads, wondering what the hell happened to this generational group.

I am sure that groups A’ and B’ exist, I am just not sure how large they are. Ominously, neither are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Health – and this is their job, to know this.

What the graph below shows is that we fail to recognize this brain-immune vaccine injury (systemic failure) for three reasons:

1. We lack and have blocked by social activists, the necessity to drive forward research on the matter, leaving us bereft of expertise in detecting injuries (α band)

2. We practice large Simpson Effect vulnerable studies which screen out 97% of actual injury cases through data collection methodologies (β band)

3. Even as it regards actual recorded injury cases, we develop exclusion criteria which eliminate any p-value signal (produces a curative inversion effect) (γ band).

This is how the game is played folks.

The C’ class of the severely injured in the graph below, constitute merely a political football. Generally there are two constituents of this class: 1. Those of profound injury right off the bat, and of whom a small minority are awarded compensation – which itself is a vast minority of total injury cases (Less than .03%).18 This so that we can put on the masquerade of addressing vaccine injuries as a society. And 2. Those not NVICS compensated, but which can be detected, and are reported, and are accepted as classified by medical plans inside the vaccine injury group by age 5.  Again a very small sliver of the A’ + B’ + C’ injured class is ever actually acknowledged by society as being injured – enough to find a couple clever exclusion criteria tricks in order to screen out of a study.  C’ – 2, 3, and 5 year old medical plan data is easy enough to screen out, but it will always produce an inversion effect when this approach is used.

What you see below is intelligence – a structure inside which probative insights/questions are brought to greater and greater levels of reliability. This is how scientific discoveries are made. It is not that the paradigms outlined below are abjectly right – they simply reside along a critical path which demands that they be objectively addressed with follow-up study first. This is how scientific reduction is done.

Today’s institutions hang out on the right side of the graph only and meticulously avoid any probative research (middle and left side of the graph) – because of the danger of discovering something which is socially feared by power and profit makers. Completely useless authorized numbers, 2% informative, crafted inductively into an appeal to ignorance lie.

What will be the net effect of this? What follows continues my speculation concerning the A’ + B’ group above, granted. But this as well is not unsound projection, rather a real danger. This class of quirky to odd, mild autism, social/risk introvert class could comprise as much as 40% of our population of kids inside The Vaccinial Generation. I also fear that we are already observing this reality in our kids today. Increasingly incompetent at handling the demanding nature of our society, through no fault of their own in its genesis, our Vaccinials will fail to follow previous generations into complex scientific, mathematical and research based work.  Calls for social programs will increase, drug dependency will continue to rise and the burgeoning ranks of the despair class will continue to grow.  In a previous study, we outlined that it will take the creation of 8,000 care centers in the 2060 US, just to care for our fully acknowledged Level III and severe cases of cerebral injury generated through 2016.19 Not to mention the $ billions spent each year to care for our injured children – a cost which is patriotically absorbed by our shrinking class of responsible American parents. None of this bodes well for our nation at all. This is simply a process of genocide through proxy:.

The Post-Columbine Generation (Vaccinials) is under stress and mental duress – expressions called ‘autism’ which are altering the resilience and ability of our kids to deal with life stress.

The Risk We Ignore: 15 – 30 Million American Citizens – An Entire Latent Brain/Immune Injury Generation (A’ + B’ + C’)

  • regarded as odd and directionless by older generations (real, not simply age perception)
  • socially reserved or withdrawn
  • fascinated or fixated on weapons or symbols of personal power
  • violent or prone to depression related hatred of peers

“When your brain is not fully developed, you don’t know how to deal with these things. That’s the child I’m sitting across from. …he’s just a broken human being.”

~ Parkland School Shooter Nikolas Cruz’s Attorney, Melisa McNeill

  • terrified into comfort with meager surroundings and possessions
  • expressing individuality only through imitation of peers
  • little desire to enter relationships or have children
  • extreme gender confusion
  • failure to grasp math, science and complex research
  • vulnerability to easily memorized script – religions/vague causes of social justice
  • fear of society and aversion to engaging in beneficial risk
  • lacking in ability to project, plan and anticipate
  • vulnerable to chronic autoimmune and brain impacts, CFS, Lupus, ME, MS, Fibromyalgia, etc.
  • bankrupt from extraordinarily high medical expenditures and low employability
  • vulnerable to the malevolent who masquerade inside our society for social & political gain
  • vulnerable to the criminal and violent (also a growing class)
  • vulnerable to drug addiction
  • vulnerable to monoculture and oligarchy
  • unskilled at middle class and upper middle class jobs or higher
  • lacking in physical skills needed for heavy labor/manufacturing
  • unable to contend for themselves in gray areas and legal proceedings
  • unable to hold their government accountable

All now displaced by ‘now needed’ and less-vaccinated, immigrants. Only a Tyflocracy can promote this type of population genocide and replacement with no conscience. No, no one came up to them and shot them in the back of the head, nor put them in gas chambers – opting instead to blend their latent Gulag Archipelago into the overall framework of society at large. I’ve had the measles, and I tell you I would have it 1,000 times over again myself, rather than have my child be vaccine injured or attain even a partial form of this outcome for our nation.

“Autism should be viewed as a threat to our national security. At the rate that it is increasing, it is a fundamental threat to our very existence as a Nation and a negative influence on our role in the world. So hiding from the truth and continuing to ignore a fast approaching disaster is a very unpatriotic disposition towards our country.”

~Abdulkadir Khalif, Contributing Editor at Age of Autism, quote from – Mary W Maxwell, PhD LLB – Consider the Lilies: A Review of Cures for Cancer and their Unlawful Suppression

Is all this proven? It is relegated to parents networking together and developing anecdote and group observations into a form of necessity driven competing science, with little help. So, in a word, no. Has the Ockham’s Razor precaution-action threshold been surpassed? Absolutely. Am I a qualified observer? Contextually no – but expertise and practice-wise, yes. I am the type of person missing from this argument equation. An intelligence specialist, a systems/signals/statistics science professional and a mystery solving fiend. Were I an enemy of the United States, I would be patient-to-drooling over this set of circumstances. No war is even necessary. The fight is beyond the ability of their anosognosiac skeptics and bureaucrats to detect. Their career-policing propaganda forbids them even looking into the matter. As a patient enemy of the US, I would simply enjoy such hilarious circumstances, be conservative on my own vaccine schedules, and wait things out.

And does the United States bear the largest incidence of autism/encephalopathy in the world? At 276 cases per 10,000 kids (1 in 36 kids, 1 in 27 boys and 1 in 80 girls), per the November 2017 CDC Autism Report, yes.20

‡ You will notice the CDC’s spin on the latest autism increase from 2014 to 2016 as being ‘not a statistically significant change’. This is incorrect, in that the latest increase from 1 in 55 kids to 1 in 36 kids continued the sustained ASD acceleration curve (see blue ASD line in the graph above) in autism diagnoses which has expressed since 1995, and was significant in its absolute growth as well. I am not sure how the study authors declared this to not constitute ‘a statistically significant change’? The only way this could be, is if 1) there was no sustained historical trend, and 2) the volatility of the measure variance had been historically large. Neither of which is the case inside this data.

In conclusion, the essence of what I am objecting to in this article is the abject reality that those who control and legislate our policy regarding vaccines and vaccine schedules, are not placing enough science, accountability and service in the public trust into their decision making processes. Yes, we are preventing disease, but at what cost? We do not actually know. I do not need a cadre of dilettante unemployed lab techs explaining that the science is settled on this issue. It is not. They are idiots. I need real plenary science to demonstrate to me that this risk is beyond a reasonable confidence of exclusion – and NOT the cherry sorted & arm’s-length statistical21 study propaganda foisted upon us all to date.

Real skepticism, real ethics, real science.  Not the counterfeit.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post => 22


January 14, 2018 Posted by | Institutional Mandates | , , , | 6 Comments

Denial and Pseudo-Skepticism are Not the Same Thing

Pseudo-skepticism is the form of cynicism wherein a power holding group tampers with methods and science, media and social pressure mechanisms inside a domain of large unknown – in order to craft and enforce on the public, a null hypothesis or conclusion narrative, that might at best be accidentally correct. This is completely distinct from the process of denial. Suspension in denial may be existentially incorrect, but it at least stems in its originality from proper method and does not enforce a particular small-unknown domain conclusion narrative. The distinguishing difference is this: An ethical scientist might be a denialist at times, but an ethical scientist can never be a pseudo-skeptic.

I recently had a discussion on Twitter with a gentleman (and separately a brief dispute with a posing pseudo-intellectual who seemed more focused on me than this topic) about the distinguishing earmarks which separate stances of denial from the methods of pseudo-skepticism. The contention is often made inside social skepticism, that the denial of Anthropogenic Global Warming, constitutes ‘pseudo-skepticism’. This because those who oppose AGW claim to be using skepticism to support their uncertainty over that consensus conclusion. The purpose of this charade in tampering with otherwise well fitted definitions of pseudo-skepticism and denial, is to provide a misdirection with respect to understanding the actions of social skeptics on other issues (true pseudo-skepticism). Social Skeptics enjoy enormously the opportunity to misinform the public through the ridicule that can be generated over highly contentious and visible issues just such as climate change. Denialists may even borrow some of the errant methods taught by social skeptics in their desperation to keep an issue open. But just as vigilantes and police might appear to at times share methods, they are not the same thing at all. (Please note that I am an AGW advocate, I just maintain questions surrounding some of the consensus alternatives which were, or were not, researched in our process of deduction therein. Nor do I extrapolate the science into contentions that evil working Americans or Republicans are therefore worthy of violent opposition and disdain)

Denial is simply dogmatic allegiance to a refusal to accept a consensus based conclusion of science or groups claiming to represent science (dogmatic dissent). And while denial does involve avoiding selection of an alternative or promotion of the null hypothesis as a Verdrängung Mechanism, it really has nothing to do with one being ‘open minded’ – and may indeed be based cruxially upon a closed mindset. It does not mean that one is using skepticism incorrectly necessarily – rather that their dissent has ossified into a condition of dogmatic cynicism – and not that any particular feature of their skepticism is necessarily wrong. There is never a condition of skepticism wherein one just throws up their hands at any kind of questioning, basking in the bliss of the ‘right answer’ – as attractive a surrender as this might appear to the political agenda laden, weary or snowflake heart.

Skepticism itself does not mean that I must accept specific answers, it simply means that I defend the methods of science, even in the face of popular votes – and withhold disposition until a critical nexus is reached. A skeptic can simply be contending that this nexus has not yet been reached – and even disagree with inadequately supported claims to consensus. One can do this however, and still ossify into the cynical specter of denial.  In contrast, and as exhibited in the chart above (click to expand), pseudo-skepticism is the form of cynicism wherein a power wielding group tampers with methods and science, associations, media and social pressure mechanisms in order to create and enforce on the public, a false null hypothesis or conclusion narrative. This is completely distinct from the process of denial. Denial may be existentially wrong – yet still have stemmed from proper science methods originally. Pseudo-skepticism is agenda laden methodical doubt – used to identify the bad guys who don’t accept the right answer – and is only existentially correct in its conclusion by accident. Denial does not enforce any particular conclusion, only pseudo-skepticism does this.

A chief tactic of social skepticism is to blur the distinct integrity of words which might be useful in describing and communicating the methods of masquerade they employ.

A Contrast: Example of Pseudo-Skepticism

Of course, enormous uncertainty surrounds the fate of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan during the terminal leg of their journey around the world. On the team’s fateful July 2nd 1937 trip, their radio signal was picked up by a number of surrounding radio stations (Oahu, Midway, Howland and Wake islands). Despite Noonan having been trained in what is called Dead Reckoning and Radio Direction Finding navigation, they were unable to utilize the bearing of the radio direction signal from the on-station Coast Guard Cutter Itasca, in order to develop a track from their DR (navigation slang for a ‘Dead Reckoning track’ – an assumed-correct course based upon speed, bearing and time – an inductive extrapolation used frequently in navigation – I have over 7,000 practice hours in this method of navigation). A track which would lead them to a visual confirmation of Howland Island, their destination. Itasca had detected Earhart and Noonan right on the correct bearing for termination of the DR phase of their navigation plot. Yet, despite having the Itasca’s axial measurement on their RDF radio, Earhart and Noonan never showed up for the scheduled landing. A very odd occurrence given that four of five navigational variables (Howland axis, distance, speed, time) had been solved for, and only one uncertain variable remained – axial distance to Howland Island.

When you are a skeptic, who is misapplying skepticism and fail to realize that you don’t understand critical elements of dead reckoning navigation or how radio direction finding antennas work, you might assemble grand logical conjectures which are erroneous in attempting to provide a ‘simple’ explanation to this mystery (note: this is not an instance of Dunning-Kruger Error because neither celebrity skeptic communicator, Michael Shermer nor Brian Dunning are ‘peers’ to any dead reckoning navigators as a discipline group – this is simply an instance of failed skepticism, pseudo-skepticism – and great example at that). Moreover, if the club picks up your ‘rationality’ and hails it as a championing issue, then that error becomes dogmatic – ossifying, from methodical doubt in the handling of Ockham’s Razor sufficient alternatives, into the a priori bias of pseudo-skepticism. For example, in his June 22nd blog, Brian Dunning inexpertly applies apparent common sense to the issue – a grave mistake when used in lieu of actual investigative skepticism:

Earhart and navigator Fred Noonan had followed Itasca’s radio direction finding signal to get there. The water there is very deep, and it’s unlikely that much survives of the plane to ever be found. There’s never been any mystery surrounding her loss at sea.

For some reason, [TIGHAR’s] Gillespie thinks they flew instead to an island called Nikumaroro, a full ten degrees off the course they are known to have followed, and which their fuel onboard made it physically impossible to reach.1

The astute ethical skeptic will notice primarily that Dunning here is overconfident in his promotion of the single, popular, Occam’s (sic) Razor, conforming and simple Verdrängung Mechanism solution. The argument is over and no further research needs to be done as “There’s never been any mystery surrounding [their] loss at sea.” Well, as it turns out, this entire contention set is incorrect. It is pseudo-skepticism. It may make sense for the general public (the vulnerable of pseudo-skepticism) to consume the idea that a tenacious pilot and experienced navigator just flew mindlessly until they ran out of fuel, but it does not make sense to a seasoned investigator (skeptic).

Pseudo-skeptics package material for general consumption. Their goal is not truth; rather, influence.

First, Noonan followed Itasca’s radio direction AXIS, not bearing (as Dunning implies), and there is a difference which a skilled dead reckoning and RDF navigator knows, a skeptic might ascertain, but a pseudo-skeptic will never know (and more importantly, never get the feedback that their skeptical method was wrong). The ‘Loop’ or axial antenna is shown mounted on top of Earhart’s Lockheed Electra in the photo to the right.2 What this type of direction finding device gives is a two bearing axis, not a single bearing direction.3 So the information Fred Noonan would have possessed was ‘Howland Island is either 350 degrees true from us, or 170 degrees true from us’ (see map above, upon termination of the dead reckoning phase of navigation). Their next step would be to fly one of the axis bearings to see if the signal faded or strengthened. The problem is that they were using very low HF (today’s frequency standards) frequencies, of which the signal propagation will dance around and chaotically strengthen and diminish no matter where you are. I once encountered a circumstance in my communications radio operator days where a 3MHz signal just like they used here, was totally clear from Diego Garcia, 1500 nautical miles away, yet I could not hear another transmitter on that same frequency band which was just 100 nautical miles from me.  This is the way radio frequency HF direction finding works. It bears enormous risk in its interpretation.

In addition, there was no ‘there’ to be gotten to in the first place. The navigation plot was ending its DR phase (an inductive conjecture) and transitioning to a radio directed phase (a deductive measure). This transition occurs at only a theoretical ‘there’. This is why a fix (the yellow circle with a dot inside it, on the chart above) is symbolized by a full circle, and carries more confidence than does a DR (in tomato) which is symbolized by a half circle. These symbols imply confidence on the datum.

Would not such symbology help in matters of science, to distinguish conclusions of induction and abduction pushed by pseudo-skeptics, as distinct from conclusions of deduction on a Query Oriented Normalization schema? But, we learn in pseudo-skepticism that the duty of skeptics is to defend questionable inductive answers (DR half circles) as science and never look again. The DR-science is finished. So…

Second, yes all the water was deep everywhere and no, it is not ‘unlikely’ – rather prohibitive, that any wreckage of the plane survives to this day, had they ditched in open ocean as he suggests.

Pseudo-skeptics rely upon how clever a phrase sounds, rather than its probative value. They will rarely catch a circumstance wherein we have stacked deductive methods on top of inductive conclusions. This is not a sound process – despite its looking ‘sciencey’ through its equipment and analytical tools. It is as dangerous socially for mankind every bit as much as it was navigationally for Noonan and Earhart.

Third, they did not follow a ‘known’ course as Dunning describes it, as Earhart and Noonan did not find the course confirming islands they had hoped for.4 A DR is not a ‘known’ course and speed, it is rather just as in the case of ‘there’ above, an assumption. If the prevailing winds were 10 knots south rather than the 1937 era forecast 3 knots north, then that would impart a 50 nautical mile error into the ‘known & there’. This is called a ‘tail condition’ in arrival distribution science – a less common scenario, but all too possible and real. The purpose of navigation is to use discipline methods to mitigate the risk of this assumption aspect of navigation and any tail condition circumstances.5

Pseduo-skeptics habitually fail to assess risk, tail variance and significance, as well as the impact of human behavior on social systems inside objective scenarios or their own construct analysis.

Fourth, Nikumaroro is EXACTLY ON, Noonan’s RDF search axis with Howland Island, a natural island to find once one has terminated their DR, and begun an uncertain axis search (again, something a pseudo-skeptic would never know).6

Pseudo-skeptics will tamper with terminology, using large footprint equivocal words, altering the meaning of probative terms in order to emasculate them, and switching critical words so as to reduce their expository value – like here, employing ‘bearing’ in lieu of ‘axis’. They are fully aware that 97% of the population, none of their cronies, nor scientists will catch the significance of the shell game.

Fifth, as you can see on the per hoc aditum scenario chart above, if Earhart and Noonan did not have the fuel to reach Nikumaroro, then they did not have the fuel to reach Howland Island, their destination either; unless the wind was just right (emphasis here). I seriously doubt that an experienced global pilot like Earhart would have taken off without enough fuel to cover for unexpected normal circumstance wind set and drift (such as 13 knots to the north or south).

This habit of crafting apparently solid debunkings, which rely upon clever sounding one-liners, in lieu of real understanding – this is a habit of pseudo-skepticism. Once you apply short cut one-liners in one discipline, you will do them in all (see Margold’s Law). The call here is to hold epoché, not craft appeal to authority solutions without real evidence.

Finally, their fuel would have run out EXACTLY about the time of spotting Nikumaroro island, based on the theoretical DR/RDF axis search, which is the standard practice of RDF/DR navigators. They had enough fuel to take the above track and even circle the island to see where they might land; as a reasonably conservative pilot will choose a deserted island beach over a chance of an open sea landing, any day, any time. If they are in trouble, they will land in a place where survival is enhanced and not chance a total loss in trying to find something better. Earhart did not have to be ‘ten degrees off course’ as Dunning inexpertly opines, because the “off course” variation he assumes is explained by the very RDF axis search Fred Noonan was trained to execute (in yellow in the image above).

A pseudo-skeptic will fail to see the non-linear dynamic outcomes of which a system is capable. Solutions are therefore easy, common sense founded upon induction – and become  prescriptive through Lindy Effect from that point onward – most fully unaware of the thin ice upon which their grand cosmologies stand.

Not to mention of course that the final radio direction finding fix of the aggregate of all the RDB reports from the surrounding islands (see on the chart above, the grey bearings reported by Itasca, Oahu, Midway, Howland and Wake islands – collectively support an aggregate fix at the position of the yellow circle fix), much more solidly than does ‘simplest explanation’ skepticism, places Earhart and Noonan about 50 nautical miles north of a nearest proximity island, right on the Howland search axis …Nikumaroro.

What distinguishes fake skepticism, just like fake news, from the real thing – is not the facts you bring to bear; but rather the facts you choose to leave out.

Note as well, that if I use only the radio direction bearings of the two closest radio stations (Itasca and Midway), then I get a two-shot fix right on top of Nikumaroro island. This should have been one of the first places to examine. Never underestimate the impact of the human desire to survive and skilled pilot ingenuity on ‘simplest answer’ alternative hierarchies.

The problem with social skepticism is not that individuals abuse skepticism to prematurely arrive at a personal wrong conclusion. The problem does not reside in simply being wrong. With social skepticism the entire scientific and public community at large, intimidated by simple linear approved thought, arrive at and permanently affix these errant conclusions. We take Dead Reckoning style induction or abduction – and falsely regard it as proved science. Then we stack such conclusions upon each other into grand assemblies of Dead Reckoning tracks – ignorant of the error we have imparted and multiplied (see Contrasting Deontological Intelligence with Cultivated Ignorance).

It does not matter that these individuals are rational and can eventually at a later time, be brought to understand what really happened inside such mysteries. What matters is that they over-confidently estimate their ability to spot and define ‘likelihood’ – and failing to evaluate that risk, compound it by releasing such conclusions as ‘rational’, ‘factual’ and science-based – simply because they think they used skepticism.

They would have circled and landed, only minutes after these transmission bearing measurements, as a precautionary measure. Observe the graphic I assembled above which reflects these final RDF bearings, and note where their weighted three-shot fix resides.7 A very compelling theory – and this is how science actually works. Why did Brian Dunning not do this same research? Because he was applying pseudo-skepticism (see Steven Novella’s definition). He selected for one imperious and what he thought to be, likely correct answer, to be enforced by bad method – upon us all. My citing that his biased selection of one answer, constitutes wrong method, does not serve to make me therefore a ‘denier’ – even if 97% of his cohorts support the single answer. [Note: Brian Dunning appears to be a pretty cool and smart dude, so nothing in this example is intended to amount to any personal disparagement in any way. That includes Michael Shermer as well. I actually really do like these guys.]

Pseudo-skeptics employ derision or humor, not just to motivate deniers to accede to scientific gravitas, they mostly employ humor to block critical alternatives and prohibit deductive science, because of its distinct probative & epistemic value. They do not care what is truth – they care what you believe is truth. Often the developers of pseudo-skeptic propaganda (like the above fake science tweet from a paid hashtag stuffer – someone employed to squelch disdained ideas) are hired and compensated to play such a role. Deniers typically, not always, but typically rely upon conscience.

Knee-jerk dismissing this compelling theory as a viable and testable alternative, in favor of ceasing science and adopting a simple or socially preferred/conforming explanation, ‘they crashed into the sea’ – this is pseudo-skepticism. You will see it play over and over inside society – it is not the same as denialism.

Denialism is probably being wrong; pseudo-skepticism is being not even wrong.

Dismissal of a very compelling alternative theory – one which is supported to a great degree by the intelligence, one which is rational, one which is highly plausible by expert method, one which bears mechanism and can be tested (not that an ethical skeptic assumes it as a priori correct); dismissing this in advance of sufficient knowledge horizon development or testing is …pseudo-skepticism. It is pseudo-science. More specifically, what have Shermer and Dunning done here? In specific regard to pseudo-skepticism their contentions feature a degree of Methodical Pathology combined with a knee-jerk compulsion to enforce conformity. That is, they have ossified from dissent to cynicism. Specifically many pseudo-skeptics practice the following:

Hints that one might be a pseudo-skeptic (wrong methods and only accidentally correct)

  • A pseudo-skeptic rarely understands an opposing alternative, they socially – just don’t care about soundness or logical calculus
  • Has bought into one single answer
  • Promotes conjecture and conformance inside a subject with a large horizon of unknown
  • Chooses a ceremonial issue
  • Focuses on issues which bear no productive achievement potential with respect to love, an increase in usable knowledge, or the alleviation of suffering
  • Uses non-expert skeptics, as communicators – instead of investigative reporters
  • Decides the likelihood of ideas before the preponderance of compelling theory has been researched
  • Targets groups or legitimate researchers bearing ideas they do not like, as the bad guys (TIGHAR in this case) – polarizing and corrupting the issue a priori
  • Employs hearsay, common and ‘friendly sounding’ information as the principal elements to communicate
  • Enforces a popular standing belief as the ‘simplest explanation’
  • Chooses an issue which will incite their faithful with interest
  • Selects a position which can be perceived as being the ‘rational’ approach
  • Selects a position or issue which will tender them attention
  • Chooses a topic which contains enough unknown such that bias is hard to discern or be held to account for
  • Selects an issue where Nickell Plating (doing sciencey-looking things to appear skepticky) is practicable
  • Chooses an issue where to conform to the standing explanation can be used to show why those who oppose you are ‘irrational’
  • Stands in a position to block the investigation of compelling alternatives or intelligence
  • Assigns a null hypothesis which has been assigned without merit (See The Five Types of Null Hypothesis Error)
  • Never held epoché to begin with
  • Accepts entire bundles of scientific ideas based upon what political side they appear to reinforce
  • Employs false methods of science (often with real true facts) in order to petition for cessation of further investigative activity
  • A pseudo-skeptic considers violence or legal action as a possibility at hand in the enforcement of their conclusions
  • Can never be an ethical scientist
  • Employs false science method – pseudoscience

A Contrast: Example of Denial

AGW opponents, contrary to the shtick of social skeptics who promote anthropogenic global warming social agendas, might actually use skepticism.  They might be wrong, they might reside in a state of dogged denial – but those existential circumstances do not serve to relegate their skepticism to status as pseudo-skepticism, simply because they disagree. A denialist just simply might not be willing to accept the consensus alternative. An ethical scientist might be a denialist, but an ethical scientist can never be a psuedo-skeptic. More specifically for this example, a denialist ‘denies’ that the null below has been correctly assigned; and denies further that all of the alternatives below have been falsified through ample research and processes of deductive consilience:

Null – Carbon dioxide (and methane in ‘carbon equivalents’) in the atmosphere, introduced by human activity and increasing from from 280 parts per million in the 19th century to more than 400 today, much more than any other greenhouse or warming factor, is the primary contributor to climate change since 18508

Alternatives –

1.  Cyclical changes in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), on increase since 1850, is the major contributor

2.  A cyclical shift in Solar Spectral Index (SSI), towards more release of water-vapor-absorptive infrared irradiance by the sun, has occurred since 1850 and is the major contributor

3.  Primary Earth orbital dynamics (obliquity, eccentricity and axis precession), as recorded in the Milankovitch Cycles, are at least partial and not fully understood contributors

4.  Cyclical changes to the Earth’s core nuclear reactor and structural/mantle dynamics (as measurable by geoneutrinos and as observed historically in the Schumann Resonance/Earth temperature record) have served to heat the oceans from the bottom up in the Pacific Rim of Fire and equatorial thermal regions (El Niño and La Niña), and consequently the pole ice from the bottom up, and atmosphere since 18509 10 11 12 13

5.  Deforestation and/or loss of reflectiveness/ocean/ice absorption has been the primary contributor to climate change since 1850

6.  Natural processes of water vapor, carbon and methane atmospheric release, in combination with and as precipitated resulting from the Null, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5 or any combination thereof, explain the majority of temp increases since 1850

7.  Carbon, methane and water vapor are all released as a natural sympathetic outcome of climate change, and are not primarily contributed by man – nor the principal cause, rather only a correlation with some other causal condition

Note of Clarity – A denialist denies that the Null has been chosen by valid rational or empirical processes nor that it should be rationally selected for consensus. A pseudo-skeptic denies that the alternatives are even science, or insists that they should never have been seriously investigated to begin with, or merit zero investigation now.

For me personally, I hold the Precautionary Principle as one contributor to the reason I favor taking action based upon the Null Hypothesis in the matter of climate change – and complimentarily because I have read all the material I could find on alternatives 1 – 7, and found nothing compelling enough to be considered as a falsification of the Null. Alternative 4 is interesting, but only interesting so far. I wish we had more study on it. In so far as our temperature models are now outrunning our carbon curves (see graphic I assembled at right which includes the 2017 Mauna Loa data), then we need to keep a skeptical eye on our own conclusions, in order to avoid falling into pseudo-skepticism. Denial in contrast involves ignoring climate change warnings: greenhouse gasses, and carbon dioxide in particular, are not simply a ‘correlation’ with global temperature increases, rather a fingerprint signal. A distinction point which not only denialists, but fake skeptics as well tend to misunderstand (as in the case of autism contributors for example).

I maintain skepticism around the issue and bear some concern that we have not fully investigated the contribution from all alternatives 1 – 7. But like most scientists, hold the need for precaution and the current inductive data – as bearing more concerning gravitas. Should I encounter data which develops a compelling case for Alternative 4 and 6 for instance – that does not immediately serve to make me a denialist.  If however I am protecting the null hypothesis and begin to wage a campaign to have science ignore Alternative 4, then I am indeed a pseudo-skeptic. Do you see the game they are playing with our language in order to obscure this clarification on behalf of the general public (see Wittgenstein Error and Its Faithful Participants)?

These are the kind of games for which an ethical skeptic must be ever vigilant.

Take a hint folks, fake skeptics do not hold the reasoned position I just outlined above. They are correct – but only by accident. Moreover, they employ such correctness to enact goals which have nothing really to do with the science – rather someone they hate. I respect a researching denier much more, for this simple reason. But Let’s be clear here too folks – each of these alternatives listed above are actual scientific alternatives and their investigation is done with actual science methods. In contrast, pseudo-skepticism relies upon false methods. This makes it not science. The rightness or wrongness of the conclusion has nothing to do with it. A denialist, in contrast may practice the following:

Hints that one might be a denialist (right original methods yet may be doggedly incorrect)

  • A denialist understands the alternative they are denying, as well or better than do its proponents – they disagree on its soundness
  • Has not bought into one single answer
  • Withholds conjecture and consent inside an issue of a small horizon unknown
  • Does not choose an issue, but may have it thrust upon them
  • Focuses on issues of productive achievement potential with respect to love, an increase in usable knowledge, or the alleviation of suffering
  • Uses experts who focus on the salient evidence, eschewing ‘communicators’
  • Resists a priori definitions of likelihood
  • Doesn’t target anyone – just simply disagree with either soundness or logical calculus
  • Sometimes employs hearsay, common and ‘friendly sounding’ information as the principal elements of support only
  • Does not choose a ‘simplest explanation’ – cognizant that things may be more complex than we understand
  • Does not have a faithful following
  • Does not conflate rationality with conformance
  • Does not seek attention
  • Cites and alerts the community to bias – not a specific conclusion
  • Never pretends to be or represent science, just simply skepticism
  • Does not argue ‘rationality’ and ‘irrationality’ – rather corruption and conclusiveness
  • Does not block research of any alternatives – even the one they question
  • Dissents as to the null hypothesis assigned, but may refuse to assign one as well
  • Has held epoché past its utility
  • May resist a whole set of scientific ideas they perceive to be politically motivated
  • Employs real methods of science (sometimes with errant data or assumptions) to encourage more scientific research
  • A denialist rarely or ever considers violence or legal action as an at-hand solution to their debate
  • Might be simply a mistaken ethical scientist
  • Employs science – just errs in conclusion, soundness or logical calculus

Behind the Conflation of the Two Terms

Pseudo-skepticism is an entirely distinct malicious and errant method and is not a set of errant conclusions, per se. False skeptics do not get this. They believe the notion that

The ends justifies the means, the answer justifies the methodology of arriving at the answer.

Vigilantes and Police Forces both take people into custody at gunpoint, and sometimes kill people. They both have headquarter offices, but this does not make them the same thing at all. In similar fashion, just because a denialist might use some of the tactics of social skeptics and pseudo-skeptics at times (after all this is what celebrity skeptics have been teaching the public since 1972), does not serve as a basis to identify them as pseudo-skeptics. Social skeptics will employ the use of traits common to both terminology domains, those traits in the undistributed middle, to provide a basis for conflating and confusing the terms ‘denial’ and ‘pseudo-skepticism’.  They do so, for reasoned purpose: to blur the distinct integrity of words which might be useful in describing and communicating the methods of masquerade they employ.

Characterization by the Undistributed Middle

/philosophy : formal fallacy : fallacy of composition/ : a rhetorical blending of fallacy of composition and affirmation of the consequent, wherein traits shared between two distinct groups are used to underpin the claim that the two groups are indeed identical or falsely that a person in one group actually belongs in the other group. Usually a form of rhetosophy, used to support an agenda, in its conflation. All pseudo scientists promote un-vetted data, the proponent of this argument promoted un-vetted data, therefore the promoter of this argument is a pseudo scientist.

Being right all the time, is not the goal of an ethical skeptic. Investment in such ego and fear assets – introduces bias into the deliberative processes we undertake. I would rather be a mistaken denialist, who pressed their epoché just a little bit more than they should – than a mindless, bad methods, unethical pseudo-skeptic any day.

epoché vanguards gnosis

How to MLA cite this blog post => 14

July 9, 2017 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies, Ethical Skepticism, Institutional Mandates | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Tower of Wrong: The Art of Professional Lying

James Joyce is credited with this wisdom, “A man of genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery.” Indeed, I would choose rather to be informatively incorrect, over disinformatively or uselessly correct, any day. This contrast in type of ‘wrong’ illuminates the domain of Machiavellian ideas, The Tower of Wrong; ideas which are woven of fact, yet serve to constitute in the end only adornments of error.
Beyond the three proposition framings of Wittgenstein, there exist six mechanisms of social imposition and the football-like nature of how quasi-truth is handled, which serve as the linchpins inside professional lying. The Tower of Wrong depicts how partly correct, correct but useless or dis-informing evidence (Wittgenstein sinnlos) is to be clarified as distinct from deontological information – information reliable in being critically predictive or bearing falsification outcomes.

evidence-sculptingUnder a Popperian standard of scientific demarcation, if something is rendered moot through consilience of its opposing thesis, then it is not falsified necessarily, however we may select it to stand as either a null hypothesis or a provisionally accepted norm nonetheless – most philosophers grasp this.  Of key concern however inside such a process of knowledge development, is when the possibility exists that our resulting relegation of an opposing idea to the state of moot-ness (pseudoscience) might stand as simply a provisional assumption bearing a dangerous undetermined risk? In general, a provisional conclusion is regarded to possess informing ability if that provision then becomes critically predictive when posed inside its structure of consilience.  By ‘critically’ – I mean that the provisional assumption itself serves to produce the prediction, not that it simply resides as a feature inside a host of other predictive peer elements. Evolution is an example of one such reliable predictor. However, purely random allele mutation is not a critically reliable predictor inside evolutionary theory, despite evolution itself so being.

Thus I cannot simply declare falsification to be the sole threshing tool means by which one establishes knowledge/truth/accuracy/foundation philosophy. Given this playground of slack, just below the threshold of Popper falsification, it behooves the ethical skeptic to be wary of the ploys which can serve to deceive inside claims of ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’. It is not simply that our minds can deceive us into selecting for desired outcomes, this is a given. Moreover, our most risk-bearing vulnerability instead resides in the fact that stacks of unvetted, non-reliably predictive ‘evidence’ can provisionally stack (see The Warning Indicators of Stacked Provisional Knowledge) and serve to misinform and mislead us as to wrong or useless conclusions under a ‘scientific’ context as well. The following questions should be asked, when any proposition or claim to settled science has been issued as authority:

The Test of the Professional-Social Lie (Five Mechanisms)

1.  The (Wonka) Golden Ticket – Have we ever really tested the predictive strength of this idea standalone, or evaluated its antithetical ideas for falsification?

Einfach Mechanism – an explanation, theory or idea which resolves a contention under the scientific method solely by means of the strength of the idea itself. An idea which is not vetted by the rigor of falsification, predictive consilience nor mathematical derivation, rather is simply considered such a strong, or Occam’s Razor (sic) simple an idea that the issue is closed as finished science from its proposition and acceptance onward. An einfach mechanism may or may not be existentially true.

2.  Cheater’s Hypothesis – Does an argument proponent constantly insist on a ‘burden of proof’ upon any contrasting idea, a burden that they never attained for their argument in the first place? An answer they fallaciously imply is the scientific null hypothesis; ‘true’ until proved otherwise?

Imposterlösung Mechanism – the cheater’s answer. Employing the trick of pretending that an argument domain which does not bear coherency nor soundness – somehow (in violation of science and logic) falsely merits assignment of a ‘null hypothesis’. Moreover, then that null hypothesis must be assumed sans any real form or context of evidence, or Bayesian science cannot be accomplished. Finally then, that a null hypothesis is therefore regarded by the scientific community as ‘true’ until proved otherwise. A 1, 2, 3 trick of developing supposed scientifically accepted theory which in reality bears no real epistemological, logical, predicate structure nor scientific method basis whatsoever.

3.  Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – Is the idea so important, that it now stands more important that the methods of science, or science itself. Does the idea leave a trail of dead competent professional bodies behind it?

Höchste Mechanism – when a position or practice, purported to be of scientific basis, is elevated to such importance that removing the rights of professionals and citizens to dissent, speak, organize or disagree (among other rights) is justified in order to protect the position or the practice inside society.

4.  Embargo Hypothesis (Hξ) – was the science terminated years ago, in the midst of large-impact questions of a critical nature which still remain unanswered? Is such research now considered ‘anti-science’ or ‘pseudoscience’?

Entscheiden Mechanism – the pseudoscientific or tyrannical approach of, when faced with epistemology which is heading in an undesired direction, artificially declaring under a condition of praedicate evidentia, the science as ‘settled’.

5.  Evidence Sculpting – has more evidence been culled from the field of consideration for this idea, than has been retained? Has the evidence been sculpted to fit the idea, rather than the converse?

Skulptur Mechanism – the pseudoscientific method of treating evidence as a work of sculpture. Methodical inverse negation techniques employed to dismiss data, block research, obfuscate science and constrain ideas such that what remains is the conclusion one sought in the first place. A common tactic of those who boast of all their thoughts being ‘evidence based’. The tendency to view a logical razor as a device which is employed to ‘slice off’ unwanted data (evidence sculpting tool), rather than as a cutting tool (pharmacist’s cutting and partitioning razor) which divides philosophically valid and relevant constructs from their converse.

Also, the instance common in media wherein so-called ‘fact-based’ media sites tell 100% truth about 50% the relevant story. This is the same as issuing 50% misinformation or disinformation.

6.  Lindy-Ignorance Vortex – do those who enforce or imply a conforming idea or view, seem to possess a deep emotional investment in ensuring that no broach of subject is allowed regarding any thoughts or research around an opposing idea or specific ideas or avenues of research they disfavor? Do they easily and habitually imply that their favored conclusions are the prevailing opinion of scientists? Is there an urgency to reach or sustain this conclusion by means of short-cut words like ‘evidence’ and ‘fact’? If such disfavored ideas are considered for research or are broached, then extreme disdain, social and media derision are called for?

Verdrängung Mechanism – the level of control and idea displacement achieved through skillful employment of the duality between pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect. The longer a control-minded group can sustain an Omega Hypothesis perception by means of the tactics and power protocols of proactive pluralistic ignorance, the greater future acceptability and lifespan that idea will possess. As well, the harder it will to be dethrone as an accepted norm or perception as a ‘proved’ null hypothesis.

If the answer to any or all six of these questions is a very likely yes, it does not mean that the defended idea is necessarily invalid; rather that the methods of socially arriving at, accepting and enforcing it are invalid. These are the litmus tests of professional lying at play. Take notice that a ‘fact’ therefore does not serve to necessarily transfer or increase knowledge. Evidence is an amorphous hard to grasp principle which can be sculpted to fit an idea through the actions of a perfidious minded party. A principle which wise philosophers understand, but pseudo-skeptics do not.

dont-farm-tumbleweedsThe danger of such unethical practice sets inside of science are two-fold. Fist, at face value, incorrect ideas and tyrannical social science or public policy can be enforced as scientifically correct paradigms by means of these four mechanisms. But even more important,

even valid science can lose its public trust credibility when enforced by unethical means such as these four mechanisms.

One cannot simply run around conducting unethical social activity in the name of science, and justify it through one’s credentials being, or pretending to be scientific. The danger in discrediting valid science is simply too high – one is ‘farming tumbleweeds’, as the adage goes.  Man-made global climate change is an example of just such a situation, wherein unethical strong-arm and pre-emptive measures were used to enforce an academic idea before it was fully vetted by science (see Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, 1972).  AGW turned out after the fact to have merit, but only after further studies occurred after the social chicanery, arrogance and derision had been well underway. We made enemies, rather than science. In this regard, AGW proponents, practicing these four mechanisms, turned out to be their own worst enemy – and every bit as damaging to the climate change advocacy message as are the AGW deniers today.

Which introduces now, this broader context of just what constitutes different states of being ‘wrong’. Wittgenstein identified a tri-fold disposition framework for propositions, which help the ethical skeptic work their way through this menagerie of ‘wrong’ and sort their way to the deontological goals of value and clarity. The ability to discern much of this, the critical set of nuance inside of Popperian theory of science demarcation and Wittgenstein delineation of meaninglessness, nonsense and uselessness, resides at the heart of what I call The Tower of Wrong.

Useless (sinnlos) Correctness Resides at the Heart of the Professional Lie

confused-deluded-and-the-skilled-liarSo we have established that the value of a proposition therefore relates to its nature in being critically informative or predictive. It cannot simply hide on the team of players composing a proposition or theory, it has to be THE star player when its time has come to stand at bat. What then do we do with Snoping; a condition wherein a proposition is factually correct, but because of the non-salient or useless nature of the chosen question or quickly ascertained ¡fact! surrounding it, only serves to dis-inform? The Tower of Wrong shows us how partly correct, correct but useless or dis-informing evidence (Wittgenstein sinnlos) is to be clarified as distinct from deontological information – information reliable in being critically predictive or bearing falsification outcomes.

Recently we finished a vitriolic presidential election, inside of which a particular accusation had been made from one of the candidates towards the other. Specifically, Hillary Clinton was accused of mishandling classified material at origin, by sending it through non-secure means of communication, and handling it in a non-secured environment and by means of non-secured premises and procedure.  The accusation pertained to a batch of several thousand emails which bore classified material and classified context, but were sent over personal computers and media services in violation of the National Security Act.

Clinton’s technically correct response to the allegations was issued as follows:

I have a lot of experience dealing with classified material, starting when I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee going into the four years as secretary of state,” she said. “Classified material has a header which says ‘top secret, secret, confidential.’ Nothing, and I will repeat this, and this is verified in the report by the Department of Justice, none of the emails sent or received by me had such a header.   ~Hillary Clinton ¹

Now let’s break this set of propositions down by their logical calculus under The Tower of Wrong deontological framing:

  • First sentence – true (red herring, appeal to authority)
  • Second sentence – true (serves to dis-inform – ingens vanitatum – see below)
  • Third sentence – true (ignoratio elenchi – a misdirection in argument around threatening ‘classified material at origin’ laws under national security.)

In other words,  what Ms. Clinton did here was authoritatively lie, through facts and argument misdirection.  How do I know? I was a director level Black Top Secret intelligence officer for years. I know how classified material is to be handled at origin. Ms. Clinton conveniently misdirected the argument to a context of administrative handling conditions, wherein she either originated classified material, or re-posted or discussed such material stripped of its Controlling Authority context and marking. Nice trick. Origin classified material NEVER has ‘top secret, secret, confidential’ markings. Those dispositions are only tendered later by the Controlling Authority.² However, classified material of such nature prior to disposition is handled in the same way as is all classified material – and any recitation or discussion of such materials retains the classification of the referenced material itself (recitation: Executive Order 13526 and National Security Act procedures for handling classified material at origin).² If what Ms. Clinton claimed about having ‘a lot of experience dealing with classified material [at] the Armed Services Committee’ was true, and I think it was; then Ms. Clinton knew this to be a misdirection. She lied by means of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy called ingens vanitatum. A key element inside The Tower of Wrong.

Ingens Vanitatum

/philosophy : argument : fallacy : ignoratio elenchi/ : knowing a great deal of irrelevance. Knowledge of every facet of a subject and all the latest information therein, which bears irony however in that this supervacuous set of knowledge stands as all that composes the science, or all that is possessed by the person making the claim to knowledge. A useless set of information which serves only to displace any relevance of the actual argument, principle or question entailed.

Ingens Vanitatum Argument – citing a great deal of irrelevance. A posing of ‘fact’ or ‘evidence’ framed inside an appeal to expertise, which is correct and relevant information at face value; however which serves to dis-inform as to the nature of the argument being vetted or the critical evidence or question being asked.

Hillary Clinton’s statement was a correct lie in other words. She lied with facts. The statement does not serve to inform, rather it serves to dis-inform us all. This is what is called an Organic Untruth. It is one of the tools in the utility belt of the skilled professional liar and stands as one of the stack of key elements inside The Tower of Wrong (more specifically the ’50 Shades of Correct’ below).  So without any further ado, let us expand on this towering set of conditions of incorrectness.  In the chart below, you will observe the three Wittgenstein Proposition Framings, in burgundy (bedeutungslos, unsinnig and sinnlos) – comprising the stack elements which constitute the journey from confusion, to delusion, to lying…

…highlighting the final breakthrough in the mind of the ethical skeptic: Value and Clarity. The critical deontological nature of relevant, salient and scientific critical path information, as they are enabled by knowledge and the state of being found incorrect (has value: see blue pyramid stacks below).

The Components of the Professional Lie

At the heart of the professional lie, resides the agenda they are seeking to protect, the Omega Hypothesis. This is the agenda, conclusion or theory – which has become more important to protect, than the integrity of science itself.

Omega Hypothesis (HΩ) – the argument which is foisted to end all argument, period. A conclusion which has become more important to protect, than the integrity of science itself. An invalid null hypothesis or a preferred idea inside a social epistemology. A hypothesis which is defined to end deliberation without due scientific rigor, alternative study consensus or is afforded unmerited protection or assignment as the null. The surreptitiously held and promoted idea or the hypothesis protected by an Inverse Negation Fallacy. Often one which is promoted as true by default, with the knowledge in mind that falsification will be very hard or next to impossible to achieve.

The Omega Hypothesis is enacted and supported through the following Tower of Wrong elements (Wittgenstein sinnlos) and the four Wittgenstein sinnlos Mechanisms. As a note: The definition I have crafted here for sinnlos, develops the concept into a more clear and complete fit in terms of today’s methods of misinformation – rather than solely its classic Wittgenstein framing as ‘senseless’, which overlaps too heavily inside English as opposed to German usage lexicons with his unsinnig ‘nonsense’ class of proposition. In addition I have taken the concept of sinnlos and applied it into the following four stack elements (Ambiguity, Organic Untruth, Inadequacy and Mechanism) which function to underpin a professional lie. The final elements are four mechanisms which are exercised by the most prolific, celebrity, power holding and habitual appeal-to-authority enactors of the professional lie.

Wittgenstein Epistemological Error (Proposition Framings) – the categorization of a proposition into meaninglessness, nonsense or uselessness based upon its underlying state or lacking of definition, structure, logical calculus or usefulness in addressing a logical critical path.

bedeutungslos – meaningless. A proposition or question which resides upon a lack of definition, or which contains no meaning in and of its self.

unsinnig – nonsense. A proposition of compromised coherency. Feynman ‘not even wrong.’

sinnlos – useless. A contention which does not follow from the evidence, is correct at face value but disinformative or is otherwise useless.


Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning, sense, or use in professional context by glossing over which meaning is intended in the instance of usage, in order to mis-define, inappropriately include or exclude data in an argument.

Proxy Equivocation – the forcing of a new or disliked concept or term, into the definition of an older context, concept or term, in order to avoid allowing discrete attention to be provided to the new concept or term. Often practiced through calling the new concept/term, falsely, a neologism or brush off with the statement ‘that idea has already been addressed.’

Ambiguity – the construction or delivery of a message in such words or fashion as to allow for several reasonable interpretations of the context, object, subject, relationship, material or backing of the intended message.

Slack Exploitation – a form of equivocation or rhetoric wherein an arguer employs a term which at face value appears to constrain the discussion or position contended to a specific definition or domain. However, a purposely chosen word or domain has been employed which allows for several different forms/domains of interpretation of the contention on the part of the arguer. Often this allows the arguer to petition the listener to infer a more acceptable version of his contention, when in fact he is asserting what he knows to be a less acceptable form of it.

Uti Dolo (trick question) – a question which is formed for the primary purpose of misleading a person into selecting (through their inference and/or questioner’s implication) the incorrect answer or answer not preferred inside a slack exploited play of ambiguity, interpretation, sequence, context or meaning. The strong version being where the wrong context is inferred by means of deceptive question delivery; the weak version being where the question is posed inside a slack domain where it can be interpreted legitimately in each of two different ways – each producing a differing answer.

Amphibology – a situation where a sentence may be interpreted in more than one way due to ambiguous sentence structure. An amphibology is permissible, but not preferable, only if all of its various interpretations are simultaneously and organically true.

Context Dancing – the twisting of the context inside which a quotation or idea has been expressed such that it appears to support a separate argument and inappropriately promote a desired specific outcome.

Wittgenstein Error – manipulation of definitions, or the lack thereof.

Descriptive – the inability to discuss, observe or measure a proposition or contention, because of a language limitation, which has limited discourse and not in reality science’s domain of observability.

Contextual – employment of words in such as fashion as to craft rhetoric, in the form of persuasive or semantic abuse, by means of shift in word or concept definition by emphasis, modifier, employment or context.

Accent Drift – a specific type of ambiguity that arises when the meaning or level of hyperbole of a sentence is changed by placing an unusual prosodic stress (emphasis on a word), or when, in a written passage, it’s left unclear which word the emphasis was supposed to fall on.²

Subject Ambiguity – the construction or delivery of a message in such words or fashion as to allow for several reasonable interpretations of person, place or thing to which the message applies.

Organic Untruth

A constructive form of argument which uses concealed ambiguity at the core of its foundational structure. A statement which is true at face value, but was not true or was of unknown or compromised verity during the timeframe, original basis or domain of context under discussion. Ignoratio elenchi is a misdirection in argument, whereas an ingens vanitatum argument is a method of lying through this same misdrection or misleading set of ‘true facts’.

Ingens Vanitatum Argument – citing a great deal of expert irrelevance. A posing of ‘fact’ or ‘evidence’ framed inside an appeal to expertise, which is correct and relevant information at face value; however which serves to dis-inform as to the nature of the argument being vetted or the critical evidence or question being asked.

Lob & Slam Ploy – a version of good cop/bad cop wherein a virtual partnership exists between well known fake news ‘satire’ news outlets, and so called ‘fact checkers’ media patrols. The fake news is generated and posed to the web as satire, subsequently stripped of its context by a third party, and then inserted into social media as true – whereupon it is virally circulated. Subsequently, ‘fact checking’ agencies are then alerted to this set up (the Lob), and then slam home the idea of the fake nature of the ‘news’, as well as the lack of credibility and gullible nature of those who passed it around through social media. This in itself is a fake ploy, a form a Fake-Hoaxing and Hoax Baiting practiced by social agenda forces seeking to artificially enhance the credibility of a news ‘fact checker’.

Praedicate Evidentia – any of several forms of exaggeration or avoidance in qualifying a lack of evidence, logical calculus or soundness inside an argument.

Praedicate Evidentia – hyperbole in extrapolating or overestimating the gravitas of evidence supporting a specific claim, when only one examination of merit has been conducted, insufficient hypothesis reduction has been performed on the topic, a plurality of data exists but few questions have been asked, few dissenting or negative studies have been published, or few or no such studies have indeed been conducted at all.

Praedicate Evidentia Modus Ponens – any form of argument which claims a proposition consequent ‘Q’, which also features a lack of qualifying modus ponens, ‘If P then’ premise in its expression – rather, implying ‘If P then’ as its qualifying antecedent. This as a means of surreptitiously avoiding a lack of soundness or lack of logical calculus inside that argument; and moreover, enforcing only its conclusion ‘Q’ instead. A ‘There is not evidence for…’ claim made inside a condition of little study or full absence of any study whatsoever.


tree-of-knowledge-obfuscation-smThe entire core of fallacy, crooked thinking and misrepresentation of Data, Method, Science, Argument and Assumption which is reflected inside the Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation as it pertains to a subject. This is paired as it pertains to persons with misrepresentation of Opponents, Semantics, Groups, Self and Authorities.

Any condition where a conclusion is chosen to be drawn from, or the science is regarded as settled under, a less than satisfactory representation, possession or understanding of the available evidence or under a condition where the available evidence does not satisfactorily provide for a basis of understanding, null hypothesis, Ockham’s Razor plurality, or alternative formulation (as in arguing M Theory).

Mechanism (of Social Lying)

Einfach Mechanism – an explanation, theory or idea which resolves a contention under the scientific method solely by means of the strength of the idea itself. An idea which is not vetted by the rigor of falsification, predictive consilience nor mathematical derivation, rather is simply considered such a strong or Occam’s Razor (sic) simple an idea that the issue is closed as finished science from its proposition and acceptance onward. An einfach mechanism may or may not be existentially true.

Imposterlösung Mechanism – the cheater’s answer. Employing the trick of pretending that an argument domain which does not bear coherency nor soundness – somehow (in violation of science and logic) falsely merits assignment of a ‘null hypothesis’. Moreover, then that null hypothesis must be assumed sans any real form or context of evidence, or Bayesian science cannot be accomplished. Finally then, that a null hypothesis is therefore regarded by the scientific community as ‘true’ until proved otherwise. A 1, 2, 3 trick of developing supposed scientifically accepted theory which in reality bears no real epistemological, logical, predicate structure nor scientific method basis whatsoever.

Höchste Mechanism – when a position or practice, purported to be of scientific basis, is elevated to such importance that removing the rights of professionals and citizens to dissent, speak, organize or disagree (among other rights) is justified in order to protect the position or the practice inside society.

Entscheiden Mechanism – the pseudoscientific or tyrannical approach of, when faced with epistemology which is heading in an undesired direction, artificially declaring under a condition of praedicate evidentia, the science as ‘settled’.

Skulptur Mechanism – the pseudoscientific method of treating evidence as a work of sculpture. Methodical inverse negation techniques employed to dismiss data, block research, obfuscate science and constrain ideas such that what remains is the conclusion one sought in the first place. A common tactic of those who boast of all their thoughts being ‘evidence based’. The tendency to view a logical razor as a device which is employed to ‘slice off’ unwanted data (evidence sculpting tool), rather than as a cutting tool (pharmacist’s cutting and partitioning razor) which divides philosophically valid and relevant constructs from their converse.

Verdrängung Mechanism – the level of control and idea displacement achieved through skillful employment of the duality between pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect. The longer a control-minded group can sustain an Omega Hypothesis perception by means of the tactics and power protocols of proactive pluralistic ignorance, the greater future acceptability and lifespan that idea will possess. As well, the harder it will to be dethrone as an accepted norm or perception as a ‘proved’ null hypothesis.

This wiggle room between what is considered to be ‘correct’ and what is indeed true-informing, resides at the heart of the 50 Shades of Correct. As you make your journey past the confused, deluded and lying members of our society, this mental framework is useful in vetting those who are interested in pushing agendas, from those who are keenly and openly interested in the truth.

epoché vanguards gnosis

¹  Politifact, “Hillary Clinton says none of her emails had classification headers,” Lauren Carroll, ;

²  Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information/National Security Act

January 11, 2017 Posted by | Agenda Propaganda, Argument Fallacies, Institutional Mandates | , , , , | 1 Comment

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: